I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(Case C-655/18) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Removal from customs supervision - Theft of goods placed under a customs warehousing procedure - Article 242 - Person responsible for the removal - Holder of the authorisation for customs warehousing - Penalty for failure to comply with the customs legislation - Article 42 - Obligation to pay a sum corresponding to the value of the missing goods - Combination with a pecuniary penalty - Proportionality)
(2020/C 161/11)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Severna morska’ kam Agentsiya Mitnitsi, successor in law to Mitnitsa Varna
Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Schenker EOOD
Intervener: Okrazhna prokuratura — Varna
1.Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, in the event of theft of goods placed under a customs warehousing procedure, a pecuniary penalty is imposed on the holder of the customs warehousing authorisation for failure to comply with the customs legislation.
2.Article 42(1) of Regulation No 952/2013 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in the event of removal from customs supervision of goods placed under a customs warehousing procedure, the holder of the customs warehousing authorisation is required to pay, in addition to a pecuniary penalty, a sum corresponding to the value of those goods.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.